city_action

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: attack range, prerequisites, and the special handling of city_id for decisions. It could mention more edge cases (e.g., error conditions), but is largely transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with sections (Args, For attack, For captured/disloyal) and bullet-like formatting. It is informative without excessive verbosity, though some repetition could be trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple action types, conditional parameters, ignored city_id) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers essential use cases. It lacks guidance on failure scenarios but is otherwise complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must define parameters. It explains city_id source, action list with meanings, and target_x/y as coordinates required for attack. This adds significant value beyond the schema's minimal type definitions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Issue a command to a city' and enumerates specific actions (attack, keep, reject, etc.), establishing a distinct verb+resource purpose. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_cities (read-only) and set_city_focus (different command).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use each action (e.g., attack requires walls, not fired; decisions ignore city_id for pending cities). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.